As the player himself remarked, Alex Rodriguez had to be involved in such a historic moment.  When he reaches Cooperstown somewhere down the line and they unveil his plaque, he would have achieved far too many other great feats for this one to be squeezed on there, but it’s worth remembering all the same.  The first disputed home run call reviewed under the MLB instant replay system was hit by A-Rod last night.  The introduction of the system has divided opinion, but few could argue that it worked well in its debut. 

The play in question was exactly the sort of situation that MLB had in mind when they finally decided to adopt the use of technology to make these difficult calls.  A-Rod drove a fly ball down the left field line at Tropicana Field and it ended up curling over the top of the foul pole.  The ball ricocheted to the ground and it was assumed that it had struck the foul pole itself (therefore counting as a home run).  On closer inspection, the ball had actually struck the wall behind the foul pole, making it a much more difficult call to make.  A-Rod circled the bases and the umpires called it as a home run, but the Rays questioned the decision and the crew chief Charlie Reilford agreed to take a second look.

Unlike in the NFL, the coach/manager cannot directly instigate a review by challenging the call.  The fact that Reilford admitted after the game that all the umpires “believed it was a home run” does perhaps call into question why they took Rays manager Joe Maddon’s advice.   Reilford’s explanation was that “since the technology is in place, we [the umpires] made the decision to use the technology and go look at the replays”.  In a previous post on the issue, I raised the possibility that umpires could be tempted to go to the instant replay system on a relatively frequent basis due to the fear of not referring and being wrong.  ‘Checking to make sure’ is fine so long as it doesn’t result in every single slightly debatable home run call being reviewed as a matter of course. 

Having looked at the footage though, I think there was an element of doubt about it and the umpires did the right thing even if they felt pretty confident about the call in the first place.  Joe Maddon and the Rays players probably would have asked the umpires about it a couple of weeks ago when instant replay wasn’t in operation and ultimately that should be the measure of whether it was correct to go to the review or not.

When assessing the positives and negatives of the new system, attention has naturally focused on the time it would take to review a play.  In this case, it was a very efficient process.  The actual review took two minutes and fifteen seconds, although the full length of time between the first element of doubt and the final decision being made was just over three and a half minutes.  Either way, that’s less time than would sometimes be wasted on managers and umpires arguing, managers being ejected etc.  The one thing to remember is that the replay equipment has been installed off the field and the length of the process could vary from ballpark to ballpark depending on the exact location.  The Yankee commentators mentioned during a game at the weekend that the equipment at the current Yankee Stadium had been installed in the umpire’s room and that this was a fair walk from the field of play.  So it may take longer in some cases, but the example from Tropicana Field gives us reason to hope that the process shouldn’t be too lengthy.

All in all, it was a successful debut and the impact of this shouldn’t be underestimated.  I’m sure there is a certain amount of trepidation from all quarters about how instant replay is going to work in practice.  The umpires, managers and players were all happy with how it was handled last night and I haven’t read any complaints from baseball fans either.  No doubt there will be the odd glitch in the system somewhere along the line, but last night’s debut should generate confidence that in the vast majority of cases it will not just work, but work well.